Mistake In ’08, Part VII – Chris Hughes, Jerry Brown, Jon Favreau, Barack Obama And The Party Of Women Haters

When is a clue a clue? When does the obvious become the obvious? How many times must a wo/man turn her/his head pretending s/he just doesn’t see? The answer my friend is not blowing in the wind, it is spitting us in the face!

Remember Jon Favreau, Obama’s not fired, but instead promoted to White House top speechwriter, groping, along with another Obama fratboy creep a cardboard cutout of Hillary Ciinton?

Remember Obama’s top internet guy, 24 year old Chris Hughes? Hughes was “one of four founders of Facebook”. This week we learn, via Aaron Sorkin as he defends the woman hate displayed in his latest film about the founding of Facebook, about Chris Hughes and his frat-boy friends:

“It’s not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about. Women are both prizes [and] equal. Mark’s blogging that we hear in voiceover as he drinks, hacks, creates Facemash and dreams of the kind of party he’s sure he’s missing, came directly from Mark’s blog. … Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny. The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them. …

More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren’t the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80’s. They’re very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren’t women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)”

Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook

“…went to boarding school at Andover, where he joined the Democratic Club and the student government. In the fall of 2002, he went to Harvard, where he majored in history and literature. He and a roommate, Mark Zuckerberg — now the chief executive of Facebook — shared a room that was “just about as small as my cubby at work is these days,” Mr. Hughes said.”

Now do you get it? Misogynist Hughes joined his fellow women haters at the Obama campaign because like goes to like. Creeps of a feather flock together – whether at Harvard or now at Obama’s Dimocratic Party. “Obama did not fire Favreau because they both harbor a full share of sexism and misogyny.”

When is a frackin’ clue a frackin’ clue? Jerry Brown attempted to become president by smearing working woman Hillary Clinton. Now, someone in his campaign, possibly his wife, suggested in an overheard conversation that Brown call Meg Whitman a “WHORE”. Many are making twisted excuses for “WHORE”.

Why was the “call her a WHORE” suggestion made in the overheard Brown campaign strategy session? Anyone who actually desires an honest answer to that question has to read our article from late last month:

“This past Wednesday USA Today published an almost universally ignored article which demands attention from all Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin supporters. As we Hillary Clinton supporters know, sexism and misogyny as political attacks are extremely effective:

“Calling a female candidate such sexist names as “ice queen” and “mean girl” significantly undercuts her political standing, a new study of voter attitudes finds, doing more harm than gender-neutral criticism based solely on her policy positions and actions.

Harder-edged attacks, such as referring to her as a prostitute, were equally damaging among voters, according to research commissioned by a non-partisan coalition of women’s advocacy groups.

The survey said the advice often given to women — to ignore the attacks rather than risk giving them more attention or legitimacy — turns out to be wrong. In the study, responding directly helped the female candidate regain lost ground and cost her opponent support.”

Mainline “women’s advocacy groups” (think NARAL which supported John Edwards! then Barack Obama) stabbed Hillary Clinton in the back or disappeared during the primaries. Phony women advocates like Oprah Winfrey (who voted skin color not character) likewise proved either hapless or treacherous. Neither Hillary nor Sarah Palin should expect decency or support from mainline women’s groups.”

Get it now? Poll news comes out confirming yet again that shouting RACIST WHORE! destroys a woman in a political campaign and a short while later “WHORE!” is heard from Jerry Brown’s advisers. The “WHORE!” strategy was considered because it is a killer slur for a woman political candidate. More from our few weeks old article:

Many of these “women’s advocacy groups” betrayed their constituents (yup Gay and other organizations were/are equally treacherous to their own too) and went with Obama-come-lately rather than a tried and true and effective friend. Now these dolts are “stunned”:

“I was stunned at the magnitude of the effect of even mild sexism,” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who conducted the survey. “Right now campaigns tend to be silent and try to tough it out, and this really opens up a whole new strategy of responding.”

The groups that sponsored the research are the Women’s Media Center, the WCF Foundation and Political Parity. Thursday, they will announce a joint initiative called “Name It. Change It” designed to monitor and respond to sexism against female candidates in the media.

Siobhan “Sam” Bennett, president of WCF, says demeaning or belittling language routinely afflicts women in both parties, from Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 to Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell of Delaware now.”

We wrote at the time that we expected absolutely nothing from “Name It. Change It.” We have thus far been proven right. The slight consolation is that a few individuals are waking up. Democrat Kirsten Powers:

“The Jerry Brown campaign’s “whore” comment wasn’t the first to slur against a Republican woman. And look where the attacks are coming from—progressives and liberal women.

What about saying that she’s a whore?

No, I wasn’t eavesdropping on a Duke fraternity meeting. This was the suggestion of an aide to Democrat Jerry Brown on how to deal with his GOP rival for the California governorship, Meg Whitman.

Brown’s response? “Well I’m going to use that.”

When is a frackin’ clue a frackin’ clue? The sexism and misogyny, as the “creative class” Big Blog Boys love to say is “a feature, not a bug“. More from Powers:

“Once a tape of the conversation was leaked, the Brown campaign apologized.

While we, sadly, are all too familiar with the casual misogynistic comment, what perhaps is more surprising is where these slurs lately have been coming from—progressive bastions like the Brown camp, and liberal women.

Last month, liberal talk show host Stephanie Miller laughed uproariously when a female guest on her show said that if she ever met Michelle Malkin, “I would kick [her] right in the nuts,” and warned, “Wear a cup, lady.”


Or how about this: “You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote.” This is what Democratic Rep. Janis Baird Sontany of Nashville said earlier this year of her female GOP colleagues.

Or this: “Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain’t no woman,” as Cinta Wilson wrote during the tsunami of anti-Palin hysteria in 2008. In her Salon piece, Wilson went on to refer to the Alaska governor as a “Christian Stepford wife in a ‘sexy librarian’ costume” and the GOP’s “hardcore pornographic centerfold spread.”

It comes from the coasts, from the most “liberal” “progressive” “creative class” boys and girls:

Who needs misogynist men when liberal women will do the job for you, often sounding that shopworn theme that women GOP candidates are somehow inauthentic women?

Palin, of course, has been the target of many such smears. She was derided as, “Bush in a skirt” on Huffington Post, and at The Washington Post, Wendy Doniger blogged of then-VP candidate Palin: “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”

The Big Blog Boys:

Not that liberal men are much better.

Ann Coulter is often referred to as “Mann-coulter” on political blogs in an effort to de-feminize her. And MSNBC’s Keith Olberman once referred to Malkin as a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.”

In a Salon column last month headlined “Forget about the tea party—what about the crumpets?” Gene Lyons wrote that, “The most entertaining aspect of the 2010 election season has been the rise of the right-wing cuties—political celebrities whose main qualification is looking terrific on television. From where I sit, in a comfortable chair in front of the tube, the GOP Cupcake Factor has enlivened an otherwise dreary campaign season.”

You, Sir, are a pig.

Recall when balding David Shuster had his “pimped out” moment smearing Chelsea Clinton?:

“How would David Shuster like it if we started calling his wife a whore? How would David Shuster like it if we demeaned his, if any, children? Perhaps David Shuster would prefer us to restrict ourselves to personal insults about his bald spot – which he tries so hard to hide.

There is a bald pattern of behavior at NBC and MSNBC of Clinton hating that goes back at least a decade.”

The sexism and misogyny is so deeply embedded in the society that many women don’t even recognize sexism and misogyny anymore. But in political strategy dens it is recognized and used as a weapon. Long ago African-Americans engaged in degrees of self-hatred and self-loathing. That behavior was fought with a “Black Is Beautiful” campaign intended to expose and replace that self-loathing with affirmative narratives.

Gay Americans have less successfully attempted to cleverly corrupt insults such as “Queer” into an affirmatively defiant stance and gave birth to “Gay Pride”. Women however debase themselves with pictures of Barack Obama captioned “This is what a feminist looks like.” Women such as Elizabeth Edwards debase themselves and insult the cerebrally functioning by declaring that her hubby was a better advocate for women than the woman he was running against. [Ditto NARAL, Kate Michelman, Frances Kissiling, and the “women’s issues lobby” which donated $352,000 to handsome Johnny.]

As we have repeatedly noted, the sexism and misogyny is The Shame Of The Democratic Left.

Now that the historically unprecedented Mistake In ’08 (see earlier installments of Mistake In ’08 HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE) has become apparent to all but the Hopium sedated, Obama Dimocrats are concerned. But the concern is about Obama Dimocrats who happen to be women, not about women themselves. Women are walking away from the Obama Dimocratic Party of Women Hate:

“While conservatives are already celebrating the “Year of the Republican Woman,” thanks to a record number of GOP female candidates for Congress, Democrats fear the opposite trend: the year of the women’s wipeout.

Three Democratic women first elected to Congress in 1992 — the original “Year of the Woman” — are at risk. Nearly a quarter of the 56 female Democrats in the House are considered vulnerable, including once rising stars like Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Betsy Markey of Colorado and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio.”

Elections have consequences and when the Democratic Party leadership worked behind closed doors to exploit sexism and misogyny to destroy a qualified women running for president – the consequences are coming home to roost.

In 2008 women like Rebecca Traister could not see the sexism and misogyny – or at least speak out against it. Traister supported Barack Obama. Now that she is selling a book about women in the 2008 campaign Traister opens her peepers to see the sexism and misogyny deployed in the Obama health scam. Only now does book selling Traister see the treachery, sexism and misogyny from the Democratic Left:

“When Hillary won New Hampshire, she became the first woman in American history to win a primary. I mean, I sort of knew that, of course, what she was doing was historic. But this was a massive thing, a change in 220 years of presidential history. I didn’t know, and it was my job to know. [snip]

The thing that had a radicalizing impact on me began after [Hillary lost in] Iowa. Because there was this pile-on, and to me it was mind-bending. It was coming often from people on the left. It was like something they had been keeping inside as they bit their tongues and covered this woman who had the gall to be the front-runner and the “inevitable” candidate, which was the word that they threw out there. And finally she had shown weakness, and they were just going nuts.”

Traister is too late to the “see the party for what it really is” party.

“Left-leaning lady trouble is ironic, since by many measures women are the Democratic Party—or at least 57 percent of it in the 2008 election. Moreover, the party has long been tagged as feminine: focused on purportedly soft concerns like healthcare, reproductive rights, social programs and the economy, as opposed to the more testicular national security obsessions of Republicans. Twenty-five of the thirty-eight female senators in history have been Democrats, and sixty-nine of the ninety Congressional seats currently held by women belong to Democrats. As Stephanie Schriock, head of EMILY’s List, says, “I think the Democratic Party strives to be a party of fairness and equal opportunity; that can be seen in the Democratic structure itself. You have a chair and vice chair, and in every state one has to be a man and one has to be a woman.”

The gender quotas, (usually) female-friendly policy priorities and slowly but steadily improving stats are all terrific. So why are we not hearing the party own its commitment to women’s progress by lending full-throated support to its female candidates? Democrats were recently forced to cough up the baleful statistic that only three of thirteen members of Red to Blue, its battleground district support network, are female. At around the same time, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee backed the male candidate, Representative Ed Case, in a special election for a Hawaii House seat, attempting to push his female opponent, Colleen Hanabusa—endorsed by EMILY’s List, labor unions and both of Hawaii’s senators—out of the race. Although gifted Texan orators Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards have given star-making keynote addresses at the party’s national conventions, Democrats have not put a woman on that particular podium since 1992. And in the six cycles since the history-making nomination of Geraldine Ferraro for the vice presidency, in 1984, not one other woman has been named to the top ticket.

A reluctance to advertise the centrality of women within the Democratic Party has been explained away for years as tactical necessity.

Traister still makes excuses. Instead of exposing the sexism and misogyny she accepts the narrative that Obama Dimocrats have done a great job for women. Traister states that Sarah Palin’s “claims to feminism” ring “false” but does acknowledge the woman power represented by Palin (we’ll add Tea Party women to this phenomenon). Then there is this:

They come to you every four years and say, We need your vote, but never ask for voices and visions,” says Wilson. “If you don’t give people opportunity and power within a system, they don’t stick with you…. It’s time for the party to stop just asking us to vote and say, We want you at the table of power.”

Too late, too late, too late – wake up and smell the testosterone. 2008 is not forgotten. Atavistic memory and documentation gouges at the fake claims of equality and feminism from the Frat Boy Left and Frat Boy White House. Look at Favreau writing the speeches, Hughes organizing the frat boys, Axelrod digging the dirt.

Loot at the National Organization For Women. After Jerry Brown and the “WHORE” comment NOW endorsed, not the woman, but the guy. NOW begged for a firing of the “WHORE” suggester but quickly backed away and called it a “teachable moment” for the future not the recent past. We’ve had enough fake “teachable moments” from Obama and his enablers. What America needs now is to open the eyes and admit the sexism and misogyny lesson of 2008 spitting us right in the face.

If a recent poll is at all to be trusted (it comes from a dubious source) women are beginning to walk away from the Obama Dimocratic Party of Woman Hate:

“The White House may view the last 18 months as historic, racking up a legislative scorecard that includes a $787 billion stimulus package and an overhaul of the health care system.

A majority of women, however, see it as a failure, according to a new poll conducted by Kellyanne Conway for The Kitchen Cabinet, a conservative women’s group.[snip]

Fifty-six percent of women consider the health care reform law a failure, while 29 percent view it as a success, according to the poll.

The economic stimulus package is viewed only slightly more favorably: 53 percent say it was a failure, while 34 percent say it was a success.”

The elderly/senior citizens used to be the “Democratic base” after FDR and Social Security – but in 2008 John McCain won that important demographic. In 2010 Republicans will reap the benefits that comes from that big voting in midterms demographic. Obama Dimocrats dumped the always voting senior demographic for the easily diverted young white urban liberal demographic.

Now women threaten to go the way of seniors – away from Obama’s Dimocrats:

“…their 2008 miracle voters—the young and the nonwhite—are so not interested in picking the Congress as they were in picking the president.

I hate to be a (Democratic) party pooper, but here’s the next piece of bad news. Guess who’s not coming out to vote? White women. The enthusiasm among all women is down, but Gallup shows that white women are the least enthusiastic of all the major demographic groups.” [snip]

Gallup conducted its regular weekly survey of 1,750 adults (1,500 registered voters)—then, for the period between August 1 and September 22, ran the data controlling for race and gender. The result: A dismal 27 percent of white female registered voters expressed excitement about the contest, compared to 36 percent of black men and women and 40 percent of white men. It is fair to say that the white women’s numbers are not depressed by indifference among the almost entirely white Republican women. At least in June, Gallup was finding that the Republican women were the most enthusiastic of the registered female voters. It’s the independent women (21 percent!) and the Democratic women (24 percent) who aren’t revved up about the coming midterms. [snip]

Remember the PUMAs, whose motto was Party Unity My Ass? They were the supposedly angry white women (the horror) so pissed off by Hillary Clinton’s defeat they were going elect John McCain? The PUMAs were sort of lost in the pixie dust storm of the Obama election. I wonder if we declared them an endangered species too soon? There were glimpses that all might not be well with white women in the exit polls even then. Turnout was up in 2008, but white women as a percentage of the electorate shrank a couple of points. The percentage of white men stayed the same, and nonwhites, both men and women, voted in larger percentages in 2008 than 2004.”

Who needs them? They’re White! They’re Women!

“Here’s why white women matter. Pundits like the authors of The Emerging Democratic Majority predict that a growing nonwhite population—combined with the clear-sighted fealty of the big-brained voters of the postindustrial economy (read, young white guys in chinos) and the conventional gender gap—means that Republicans would soon lose their electoral dominance. But the 2010 election seems to indicate their predictions were either wrong or way premature. Obama’s majorities were probably more anomalous than transformative: a fragile coalition of marginally less rabid white men, a few more dutiful white women, and overwhelming nonwhite support. [snip]

But that combination of holding Democratic losses among whites and unprecedented support among nonwhites did not even last two years. In June 2010, when Gallup combined the preferences of the 25 percent of the registered voter sample who are nonwhite with the 75 percent who are white, the Democratic losses among white voters had gone up and the support among nonwhites had gone down so much that the Democrats ended up trailing the Republicans overall 47 percent to 45 percent.

Until the demographics shift, decades from now, Democrats need more reliable white votes.”

“Young white guys in chinos”, Obama’s real base are the Facebook Boys who’s hatred of women cannot be hidden:

“Amid the frenzy, Stephen Colbert asked what few had observed: What about “the ladies in the film”? In his interview with Sorkin on Sept. 30, Colbert mentioned Erica, Zuckerberg’s “super smart” (ex-)girlfriend, played by Rooney Mara, then said, mischievously: “The other ladies in the movie don’t have as much to say, because they’re high or drunk or [bleep]ing some guys in the bathroom. Why are there no other women of any substance in the movie?

As we noted earlier, Sorkin has answered the question this week posed to him by Colbert: sexism and misogyny.

In the film The Social Network the Obama base of sexists and misogyny is exposed for all the world to see but few want to say “sexism and misogyny”:

“But Colbert was right. Women in the movie—apart from the lawyer and Erica, who sets the stage and disappears—are less prizes than they are props, buxom extras literally bussed in to fill the roles of doting groupies, vengeful sluts, or dumpy, feminist killjoys. They are foils for the male characters, who in turn are cruel or indifferent to them. (In a somewhat ironic turn of events, former Harvard President Larry Summers is perhaps the only man in the movie portrayed both as solicitous and respectful of a woman’s opinion.)”

Understand now why Republicans are making so many inroads with women? At conservative websites the talk is all about women – strong women – not the type Obama’s frat-boys admire:

“Last week, I attended the Smart Girl Summit in Washington, D.C.  The conference was filled with women of strength, of brains, of beauty and of fierce resolve.  Women from all walks of life who came together, fighting and trying to do what is best for their children and this country.  But, I was struck by something else; to the Left, these women are either whores or some creepy new invention of faux women, worthy of only mocking and ridicule.

Many told of times where they had been, like I have, called “gender traitors” or not real women. I’ve been called a dumb tart, just a rack, and told “I have better meat for her mouth.” I’ve been accused of being a wholly owned subsidiary of male dominated culture, whatever that means. We dumb tarts can’t seem to figure out things like that.

Every woman I met laughed such things off. That part didn’t shock me. See, we don’t relish victim-hood. We are also secure and comfortable in our own skins, breasts and fancy wombs and all. But, another reason it is laughed off did bother me. Because we are “used to it.”  The thing is, we shouldn’t be. It shouldn’t be happening. Yet, it does. Over and over.

Kirsten Powers attended the panel I was on, called Feminism 2.0, the New Face of Feminism, with Jenn Q. Public and Pamela Gorman, moderated by Adrienne Royer. While Kirsten is an unabashed liberal and likely disagrees with us on most policy points, she listened and understood the vile hatred toward conservative women that comes out of the Left. Her article at the Daily Beast today reflects that. She touched on some examples, including the most recent one whereby Jerry Brown called Meg Whitman “a whore.”  She’s a dame, you see. Thus, anything concerning financial things, which women can’t possibly understand, is whore-y. Am I right, fellas?”

Sadly the pawns in the war on women are often other women who are so imprisoned in a worldview deeply invested in sexism and misogyny they do not see or refuse to see the sexism and misogyny they reproduce (recall supposedly “liberated” Randi Rhodes):

“Jerry Brown isn’t alone. And it isn’t just coming from men. Alleged feminists are some of the worst offenders, spewing sexist and outright misogynistic garbage at conservative women.”

Yes, the sexism and misogyny comes from the Big Blog Boys and the Facebook frat brats but it also comes from women. Recall our great liberal Randi Rhodes when she, in the service of Barack Obama and the boys, called Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton “f*ucking WHORES”, “a big f*ucking WHORE”.

Yeah, that “WHORES” slam again.

Our other great liberal heroine Jeanne Garafalo was outraged on the liberal Sam Seder show when Rhodes was fired. Randi Rhodes graduated to calling Governor Sarah Palin the type of woman who sleeps with teenage boys.

As we wrote at the time the great liberals at DailyKooks did their bit to smear Hillary Clinton in 2008:

“Sometime in the last decade, her liberal foes evidently decided that whole “malevolent, power-mad shrew” thing sounded pretty good, too.

Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as “wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn’t matter we swear.” The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.

Without a hint of irony.

Clinton was suddenly a bitch, a witch, the Queen of Hearts “who has parasitically attached herself to the legacy and record of” her husband, the screech on the blackboard with an elitist trademark laugh. “Hitlery,” “Hildebeast,” and “Billary” – staples of 1990s criticisms of the feminist First Lady have returned with a vengeance. She was a monster, the devil in a pantsuit, targeted with dehumanizing and eliminationist rhetoric to which liberal bloggers used to object when the right used it against liberals, but apparently now consider okay, as long as it’s only directed at a candidate they don’t like.

In a spectacular ballet of aggressive misogyny, attacks on Clinton’s femaleness masquerading as critiques of Clinton’s policies and campaign failures (separate altogether from legitimate critiques of Clinton’s policies and campaign failures), and indifference to the former, the liberal blogosphere – once a proud conglomeration of feisty challengers to Republican memes – embraced as its own one of the most pernicious strategies of the 1990s anti-Clinton conservatives.[snip]

One diarist on Daily Kos even provided a helpful guide to all the scandals of the Clinton years, with ratings from one to 10 based on scandal level and the level of Hillary Clinton’s involvement. The “Level of Scandal” for some of the scandals listed is artificially inflated by the diarist, JohnKWilson (author of a book on Obama…. [snip]

By April, the blogfather Kos himself was agreeing that Clinton wasn’t even to be considered a Democrat anymore.

“It was an indication of how thoroughly the left co-opted the use of the GOP and media-created scandals, to smear Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, that the Republicans weren’t even mentioning them much anymore, content to let the Left do its dirty work. There was little reason for GOP operatives to get their hands dirty reviving the villainous First Lady Macbeth caricature, when many liberals were happy to do it for them. [snip]

And Randi Rhodes – a “progressive talk radio personality” – fresh from calling Clinton a “fucking whore,” fanned the same flames when she announced fearing for her life after delivering the insult to someone who routinely has her enemies whacked.

“Billary”, the two-headed monster created by the rightwing to demonize the “two-for-one” presidency of Bill Clinton and his feminist, advisor wife Hillary Clinton, also stumbled out of its grave, given new life by liberals who defended the Clintons against the very same attack when it was her being used against him during his administration, but now found it politically expedient to use him against her. [snip]

Even the architect of many of the most significant smears against the Clintons during the 1990s, Richard Mellon Scaife, had apparently dropped his campaign against them. Indeed, Scaife, the publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, inserted himself into the paper’s editorial board’s interview with Clinton while she was campaigning in the crucial state of Pennsylvania and walked out impressed – so impressed that the paper endorsed her.

Not that this satisfied the Democratic critics of Clinton, though – if anything, the howls of outrage that she would sit down with Scaife after what he’d done only got louder. [snip]

Hyperventilated one Daily Kos diarist: “This is a bigger story than if Bill Clinton and Ken Starr decided to become best friends forever. This is like OJ and the Goldman family developing an alliance.”

Other sources of the attacks of the 1990s found fresh credibility, as long as they were smearing the Clintons.

Those were our friends before 2008.

As the Mistake In ’08 becomes clearer every day, is it any wonder that women are beginning to walk away or stay away from the Party of Women Hate – Obama’s Dimocratic Party?

Senior citizens walked away from the Obama Dimocratic Party in 2008 and continue to walk away in 2010. Women are getting a clue too. Men are getting a clue. Barack Obama and his party of women hate must be destroyed in November 2010. No amount of prayers for or to Barack will help. If the party does not reject Obama and his fellow sexists and the misogynists, men and women, the destruction must continue into 2012 as well.